The recent political crisis in South Korea highlights both the vulnerabilities and resilience of its democracy. Among countries that underwent the third wave of democratization in the late twentieth century, South Korea stood out as a relatively successful case of democratic consolidation. Peaceful power transitions through elections have become the norm, and financial and political crises have been addressed through established institutional mechanisms.
However, South Korean politics have become deeply polarized in recent years, resulting in significant political conflict and division between parties. While the declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024, by President Yoon Suk Yeol was an extreme and anachronistic decision, it was a dramatic reflection of long-standing political polarization, rather than a spontaneous response. The action, which has triggered a tense impeachment proceeding against Yoon, sheds light on the deeply rooted challenges South Korean democracy is facing, particularly the enduring issues of polarization and political confrontation.
The Politics of Revenge
Political polarization in South Korea has significantly intensified since the inauguration of former President Moon Jae-in in 2017. Elected in a snap election after the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, Moon focused on holding high-ranking officials from the previous administration accountable for abuses of power and corruption, framing them as “old evils.” Additionally, he sought to avenge his late friend, former President Roh Moo-hyun, who took his own life during a corruption investigation in 2009. This “politics of revenge” mindset has created divisions between those for and against the president.
Such escalating polarization in South Korea can be attributed to its two-party system, where the dominant conservative and progressive parties (the People Power Party and Democratic Party, respectively) have increasingly relied on stoking hostility against each other to rally public support. Electoral campaigns have shifted focus from promoting policies and showcasing competency to fueling animosity between rival parties.
Presidential candidates are often chosen based on their perceived ability to confront the opposition, rather than their political experience, qualifications, or policy vision. For example, Yoon, despite having no prior political experience, emerged as the conservative candidate after resigning as prosecutor-general following a confrontation with Moon. His adversarial stance against Moon was viewed by the People Power Party (PPP) as a strategic asset, positioning him as a champion for conservative supporters seeking retribution against the incumbent administration. Similarly, Lee Jae-myung secured the nomination of the progressive Democratic Party (DP) over former Prime Minister Lee Nak-yon in 2021 by emphasizing his combative personality, prioritizing aggression over consensus.
Polarized politics persisted after the 2022 presidential election, in which Yoon secured a narrow victory by a margin of just 0.73 percent. This marginal difference created ambiguity in clearly determining the victor, and the confrontation and competition that defined the campaign carried into the post-election period.
Lacking prior political experience, President Yoon did not regard the opposition party as a necessary partner in governance. Instead, he framed the DP leader as a “criminal suspect” amid ongoing allegations of election- law violations and corruption. As political parties concentrated solely on mobilizing support from their respective bases, polarization intensified, leaving little room for constructive dialogue or compromise.
As seen in many democracies, the springtime 2024 midterm general election served as an assessment of the president’s performance. Despite facing challenging conditions, President Yoon remained obstinate and largely disengaged from meaningful communication throughout the campaign. As a result, the opposition party secured a decisive victory, with Yoon’s party winning only 108 of the 300 seats, while the DP claimed 175. Before the election, the Yoon administration had already been operating under a divided government; however, the outcome significantly enhanced the opposition’s influence within the National Assembly.
In the presidential system, crises can occur when the executive (the president) and the legislature (the National Assembly) are controlled by opposing parties and exacerbated by partisan polarization. Scholars of political science, including Juan Linz have long argued that “the perils of presidentialism” are heightened when the executive and legislature are in conflict, especially in the absence of institutional mechanisms to address such crises. The DP, now controlling the National Assembly, sought to expand its influence by directly asserting control over both the executive and legislative branches, moving beyond its traditional roles of criticism and oversight. In response, the president exercised his veto power.
Amid this standoff, the opposition party enacted significant budget cuts. Traditionally, the budgetary process was managed by the executive branch with only limited revisions from the National Assembly. This escalated the confrontation between the president and the National Assembly, with no effective dialogue to resolve the impasse.
As tensions reached a boiling point, the president declared martial law and deployed the military, prompting the National Assembly to respond with impeachment proceedings. President Yoon’s flawed decision plunged South Korean democracy into a state of crisis—harkening back to the coups that were common before the country embraced democratic governance in 1988. However, the nation appears to have withstood the challenge.
The Foreign Policy Stakes
Escalating partisan polarization and entrenched political divisions pose significant vulnerabilities to South Korea’s foreign policy. In a divisive political landscape, leaders frequently frame foreign policy as a wedge issue, aiming to divide the public and secure their political constituency by forcing binary choices.
This trend is evident in South Korea’s policies toward Japan and North Korea. Public opinion is sharply divided along partisan lines: PPP supporters generally back the Yoon government’s efforts to improve Korea-Japan relations and its deterrence-oriented North Korean policy, while the DP opposition is critical of those moves. For instance, critics of Yoon’s Japan policy leverage diplomatic issues such as the Sado mine controversy, where forced Korean labor was mobilized during the Japanese colonial rule, to frame debates in terms of being pro-Japanese versus anti-Japanese, further amplifying public division. Likewise, Yoon’s supporters use North Korea–related issues to portray the opposition as pro-communist and anti-government. Those binary narratives increase the likelihood that extreme voices gain political influence, marginalizing neutral or bipartisan perspectives.
The domestic division over foreign policy not only weakens South Korea’s external bargaining power, but also often results in delayed decision-making or reliance on provisional measures. Partisan polarization further encourages the president to bypass engagement with the opposition and unilaterally advance his own policy agenda, relying exclusively on the unwavering support of his own constituency.
Furthermore, polarized political battles have resulted in a leadership vacuum in foreign policy. This issue is particularly concerning as it coincides with Donald Trump’s return to the White House. South Korea is likely to face renewed U.S. pressure to increase its defense cost-sharing contributions to support the deployment of the roughly 28,000 U.S. troops in the country, deal with tariff protections, and comply with export controls against China—issues that will likely fuel divisive battles within an already highly polarized domestic terrain.
The Need for Reforms
Democracy consistently faces new pressures and threats. Concerns about democratic backsliding are pervasive, even in well-established democracies such as the United States, as demonstrated by the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Although the Constitutional Court’s final ruling remains pending, South Korea’s ability to resolve its political crisis through constitutional processes has reaffirmed the resilience of its democratic institutions. This outcome underscores the country’s capacity to navigate substantial political upheaval and serves as a critical reminder to younger generations, who may have come to take democracy for granted.
While the immediate situation surrounding the impeachment could eventually stabilize, South Korea’s political system will continue to struggle with effectively addressing political polarization. Achieving a more viable and resilient democracy requires urgent reform. This reform should shift the political framework from the current winner-takes-all model to one that emphasizes majority participation and fosters political power sharing. Should Yoon be removed and a snap presidential election take place, institutional reforms such as a constitutional amendment will most likely become a pressing campaign agenda.
